Regular readers might have noticed that I’ve taken a couple of days off, and with the TCM Film Festival kicking off tomorrow night, and some other things possibly brewing, I might not be following my exact usual schedule for the next several days, though I’m sure I’ll be posting stuff, but we’ll have to see. In the meantime, there’s plenty going on and I’m sure I’ve missed something.

* We eventually did get a clear, but narrow, victor in the weekend box-office battle, but nobody’s too excited about the performance of “Kick-Ass.” The film will make money, $19.8 million is not bad for a $30-40 million dollar movie, and it should help everyone’s career, but I wouldn’t bet on a sequel unless it holds really extremely well and also cleans up in home video. Also, it should be noted that the superhero comedy had a slightly unfair advantage because of its late Thursday night opening getting included in the take — at least I think it was. Steven Zeitchik, who thought the film would break out in a major way, offers a post-not-quite-mortem.

* James Cameron‘s new interview with the L.A. Times will annoy conservative anti-environmentalists and climate deniers as well as fans of contemporary written science fiction. (It’s too complicated and self-referential to make a movie out of, Cameron states, apparently unafraid of the sweeping generalization.) However, “Avatar” fans will be delighted to know that two more movies appear to be in the offing along with that extended August 3-D/Imax re-release. Cameron’s cast and crew will be, I imagine, much less happy to learn that “Avatar 2” will involve water, and lots of it. What is it with this guy and moisture? (H/t the Playlist.)

Steve Benen, who is the main guy at the terrific political blog of the liberal Washington Monthly, frequently posts what he calls “mini-reports,” and as someone who desperately needs an efficient verbal containment device that will discourage me from running off at the keyboard, I’m borrowing his format. You can’t copyright asterisks, can you?
* Fortunately for readers, my eyes glaze over just as quickly as yours do when you the subject is proposed union contracts. Nevertheless, the ongoing Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) vote is important stuff and I can’t completely ignore it, even if I’m utterly unsure how I’d vote if I were in the union. Furthermore, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what happened to the current president of the union, Alan Rosenberg, who I gather has been stripped of his authority by the “new majority” who favor a proposed new contract. I could go on, but I’m already experiencing a minor case of mind melt, so here are the dueling videos: For “Yes” — Tom Hanks. For “No”: a bunch of talented but far less famous folks, including Tom’s good friend Ron’s dad. And a very long, but kind of interesting comment by Justine Bateman. More of this to come, I suspect.

* Ever heard of Tom Swift? I barely have myself, but I gather he was the hero of a series of pre-“Hardy Boys” type adventures with a touch of Jules Verne about a boy inventor. With bigwigs rummaging through such relics of a more polite time in popular culture as “Tintin,” it makes sense that Hollywood (director Barry Sonnenfeld, of “Men in Black” fame, included) is taking an interest.